If you had, you would find out that in almost every circumstance, you will NOT be allowed to make a call using your own phone.
All of you are missing his point. He would call his wife from the jail's phone and ask her to activate his iPhone's "remote wipe" feature to erase it, even while it's under police possession. You can sign up for this service, for free, on all recent iPhones and iPod Touches.
Oh, about a year ago when my wife needed to travel unexpectedly. While I agree with you in principle and I usually book all travel reservations online, there's a lot to be said for having a human on your payroll. They can advise you on things you never would have thought of, like "they're having a cheese festival in Oshkosh and you can get 40% off if you have a 5 hour layover there". What good programmers do, you know: give the customers what they actually need and not only what they're asking for.
Hospitals shouldn't have people who are sleepdrunk on the watch. Simple as that.
"Simple as that" almost always means "I haven't thought this through". I live in a small city, population 25,000, that nonetheless has an excellent hospital and draws patients from a few hundred miles (because in this part of the country, "200 miles from the nearest city" is very common). Thing is, there simply isn't the population to support having fully staffed round-the-clock shifts of doctors. We only have a couple of doctors in any given specialty, so if you present to the E.R. at 3 AM needing that kind of help, you will be waking someone up. That's not a scheduling failure on the hospital's part or irresponsibility on the part of the doctors, but the reality of living in a smaller community.
If you need vascular surgery in the middle of the night in Boston, you're likely to be in luck. If you're one of my neighbors, well, the situation is a little different.
I discovered the Old Fashioned earlier this year. It's basically whisky and soda, but the little touches (bitters, muddled sugar, garnish) transform it into something sublime. There's not a thing wrong with a good martini or scotch on the rocks, but sometimes it's nice to try something a little more complex.
Right now, today, everything has an IPv4 address that needs one. Junk technology line NAT will keep IPv4 limping along for a while until IPv6 finds its momentum. But beyond that, the root problem comes down to networks not transitioning quickly enough. If they won't rapidly adopt something as relatively simple as dual stack, what makes you think they'll willingly and quickly roll out a wholesale change that actually breaks stuff?
It seems ludicrous to claim that the dual stack idea has failed when more and more devices are suddenly finding themselves with IPv6 addresses and are putting them to use. My home and work LANs are dual stack and everything Just Works. For being a failed experiment, it works amazingly well in everyday usage.
When an algorithm is improved it applies to just one specific problem. For some problems we already knew close to optimal algorithms 15 years ago, in those cases there was no way algorithmic improvements could have achieved such a speedup.
I get what you're saying, but still agree with the article. There's one trivially simple algorithmic adjustment that's far more common now than 15 years ago: memoizing functions. I told a story a while back about changing a coworker's code from running for 4 hours to 8 seconds. The crux of the change was using a Python dict to store the output of a function and re-using it whenever possible, and the 99+% cache hit rate had a magical effect on runtime. It also took half a GB of RAM.
That wouldn't have been a practical optimization 15 years ago, at least not on hardware then that would have been approximately as nice for the time as my company's current systems are. I didn't invent a better quicksort. I just used a basic, well-known method in a way that I couldn't have used it not so long ago.
To stick with a close analogy, roads and rail have been largely built by government dollars. However, UPS, FedEx, and USPS can charge different rates to different customers who ship large and small, and heavy and light packages.
But UPS, FedEx, and USPS don't claim to own those roads. Really, those two industries have nothing in common, even for analogy purposes. I pay my ISP. Google pays their ISP. That should be the end of the discussion as far as our respective providers are concerned. Comcast et al can't reasonably claim that Google should be paying extra to deliver the packets they serve and that I already pay to receive.
Great idea. Destruction of 20K+ lives should really help with the whole "don't be evil" thing.
I get what you're saying, but your logic is poor. What if those 20K+ lives are part of a company that's doing stuff significantly more evil? For example, I can't find it in myself to be sympathetic to someone losing their job at SCO.
Note:Anti-Net Neutrality arguments are automatically marked down as "troll."
That's because almost all of them are. I'm a registered Libertarian, love Ron Paul, thought "Atlas Shrugged" was a good read, and can't think of a single defensible argument against Net Neutrality. To me, it's like arguing against the First Amendment because it limits the rights of the government to express their displeasure at things you might say against their interests, or something goofy like that. I just can't imagine a good reason to let Comcast restrict the data I pass to other Internet hosts over data lines I built with my tax dollars.
Government regulation never protects. Ever. It controls.
You got that exactly backwards. I've never heard of a large company actually being controlled by a regulation, but the barriers to entry erected by those same regulations do a great job of protecting those same companies' business.
This is probably answered in the article, but let's be honest: most of us aren't going to read it. So, what exactly are the downsides to deploying DNSSEC today? If I could wave a magic wand and have it up and running on my server 5 minutes from now, what would break or otherwise be worse than what I have right now? I can understand the idea that maybe clients won't get the full benefit until they're configured to check any DNS requests they make to me, but I'd be hard pressed to think of why that would actually be a problem.
Same here. I bought a six-pack of Sam Adams Octoberfest last month and I still have three left. Maybe we're not the best at predicting typical consumption patterns.
It is much easier to grow your own marijuana than it is to make your own alcohol.
I've never grown marijuana, but I've helped neighbors brew beer and it wasn't that hard. Both are crummy paths to instant gratification, though, and likely only going to be popular among strong enthusiasts. Put another way, you're not going to brew beer or grow pot because you're craving a high. If that's your goal, you'd drive to your local grocery store and pick up your party supplies.
Umm, that was pretty much exactly my point. I was replying to someone who said that pot would put brewers out of business, and I contend that those same brewers - who already specialize in elaborate, expansive distribution systems for recreational drugs - would be well-equipped to diversify into pot sales.
You're completely right about all companies being in business to make money. In this case, those companies are exceptionally good at convincing customers that their brand of alcohol is better than their nearly identical competitor's. I'd bet a lot of their marketing strategies would work nearly as well with a different product line.
I mean, why would you let someone take away your government monopoly on legal substance abuse?
You're making the same mistake as people who gripe about "Big Oil" instead of "Big Energy". Just as Exxon-Mobil will gladly sell you hydrogen or biodiesel or whatever else when we migrate off oil, plenty of companies in the recreational drug industry will cheerfully market pot if it became legal.
Anheuser-Busch isn't in the business of selling you alcohol. Ultimately, they're in the business of getting you high. While they're currently most efficient at doing that by distributing ethanol, you can bet they could sell other stuff, too.
And think of the Super Bowl ads. You think they're funny now?
It's time for LVRJ to get what they've asked for: to be left alone. Completely. Utterly. Don't mention them, don't link to them, don't discuss them, don't acknowledge that they exist. Let that be the last $150,000 of income they ever collect. If they don't want publicity, respect their wishes and let them die off in a corner by themselves.
Maybe the true lesson to learn is this: don't let former employees keep their access. Not even for a few days.
And the corollary: when leaving a job, for any reason, request in writing that your access privileges be revoked immediately. If you can't get in then you can't be blamed for random mishaps down the road. And while your request obviously doesn't accomplish the technical task of removing your access, it does help establish your good intent should anything suspicious ever happen.
I think the quality of the unicomp boards is closer to the lexmark made Model Ms than the IBM ones,
I haven't knowingly used a Lexmark, but I'd still say you're right. I was using a Model M (January 91) but got a Unicomp about a year ago because I was missing the extra keys that I could bind stuff to. It's a fine keyboard, but not as firm or clicky as the M, and significantly lighter and more flexible. I don't mean that as a complaint - just an observation.
I was never a refresh maniac, but I did like it in the 80-85Hz range. Anything much below that would start to give visible flicker that drove me batty. I never could understand people who were happy with 50Hz and didn't see the strobe light sitting on their desk. I sure liked my resolution, though. I had a 19" Samsung CRT that thrived at 1600x1200x80, but I tried a lot of cables before I found one that looked acceptably good at that level. I figured that if I'm going to stare at something for 8+ hours a day, I want it to look nice.
But I've never paid more than $10 for an HDMI cable, and that was only when I needed one now and that was the cheapest I could find at Target on a moment's notice.
Slashdot Mirror
[citation needed]
Wikipedia, thus completing the circle.
I'll give it a try. Thanks!
If you had, you would find out that in almost every circumstance, you will NOT be allowed to make a call using your own phone.
All of you are missing his point. He would call his wife from the jail's phone and ask her to activate his iPhone's "remote wipe" feature to erase it, even while it's under police possession. You can sign up for this service, for free, on all recent iPhones and iPod Touches.
Seriously, has this really ever worked for you?
Oh, about a year ago when my wife needed to travel unexpectedly. While I agree with you in principle and I usually book all travel reservations online, there's a lot to be said for having a human on your payroll. They can advise you on things you never would have thought of, like "they're having a cheese festival in Oshkosh and you can get 40% off if you have a 5 hour layover there". What good programmers do, you know: give the customers what they actually need and not only what they're asking for.
Hospitals shouldn't have people who are sleepdrunk on the watch. Simple as that.
"Simple as that" almost always means "I haven't thought this through". I live in a small city, population 25,000, that nonetheless has an excellent hospital and draws patients from a few hundred miles (because in this part of the country, "200 miles from the nearest city" is very common). Thing is, there simply isn't the population to support having fully staffed round-the-clock shifts of doctors. We only have a couple of doctors in any given specialty, so if you present to the E.R. at 3 AM needing that kind of help, you will be waking someone up. That's not a scheduling failure on the hospital's part or irresponsibility on the part of the doctors, but the reality of living in a smaller community.
If you need vascular surgery in the middle of the night in Boston, you're likely to be in luck. If you're one of my neighbors, well, the situation is a little different.
I discovered the Old Fashioned earlier this year. It's basically whisky and soda, but the little touches (bitters, muddled sugar, garnish) transform it into something sublime. There's not a thing wrong with a good martini or scotch on the rocks, but sometimes it's nice to try something a little more complex.
Hey, cool! I have Mixologist but never noticed that feature. Now I'm off to catalog the liquor cabinet.
It wasn't on the level.
It sucked.
Right now, today, everything has an IPv4 address that needs one. Junk technology line NAT will keep IPv4 limping along for a while until IPv6 finds its momentum. But beyond that, the root problem comes down to networks not transitioning quickly enough. If they won't rapidly adopt something as relatively simple as dual stack, what makes you think they'll willingly and quickly roll out a wholesale change that actually breaks stuff?
It seems ludicrous to claim that the dual stack idea has failed when more and more devices are suddenly finding themselves with IPv6 addresses and are putting them to use. My home and work LANs are dual stack and everything Just Works. For being a failed experiment, it works amazingly well in everyday usage.
When an algorithm is improved it applies to just one specific problem. For some problems we already knew close to optimal algorithms 15 years ago, in those cases there was no way algorithmic improvements could have achieved such a speedup.
I get what you're saying, but still agree with the article. There's one trivially simple algorithmic adjustment that's far more common now than 15 years ago: memoizing functions. I told a story a while back about changing a coworker's code from running for 4 hours to 8 seconds. The crux of the change was using a Python dict to store the output of a function and re-using it whenever possible, and the 99+% cache hit rate had a magical effect on runtime. It also took half a GB of RAM.
That wouldn't have been a practical optimization 15 years ago, at least not on hardware then that would have been approximately as nice for the time as my company's current systems are. I didn't invent a better quicksort. I just used a basic, well-known method in a way that I couldn't have used it not so long ago.
To stick with a close analogy, roads and rail have been largely built by government dollars. However, UPS, FedEx, and USPS can charge different rates to different customers who ship large and small, and heavy and light packages.
But UPS, FedEx, and USPS don't claim to own those roads. Really, those two industries have nothing in common, even for analogy purposes. I pay my ISP. Google pays their ISP. That should be the end of the discussion as far as our respective providers are concerned. Comcast et al can't reasonably claim that Google should be paying extra to deliver the packets they serve and that I already pay to receive.
Great idea. Destruction of 20K+ lives should really help with the whole "don't be evil" thing.
I get what you're saying, but your logic is poor. What if those 20K+ lives are part of a company that's doing stuff significantly more evil? For example, I can't find it in myself to be sympathetic to someone losing their job at SCO.
Note:Anti-Net Neutrality arguments are automatically marked down as "troll."
That's because almost all of them are. I'm a registered Libertarian, love Ron Paul, thought "Atlas Shrugged" was a good read, and can't think of a single defensible argument against Net Neutrality. To me, it's like arguing against the First Amendment because it limits the rights of the government to express their displeasure at things you might say against their interests, or something goofy like that. I just can't imagine a good reason to let Comcast restrict the data I pass to other Internet hosts over data lines I built with my tax dollars.
Government regulation never protects. Ever. It controls.
You got that exactly backwards. I've never heard of a large company actually being controlled by a regulation, but the barriers to entry erected by those same regulations do a great job of protecting those same companies' business.
This is probably answered in the article, but let's be honest: most of us aren't going to read it. So, what exactly are the downsides to deploying DNSSEC today? If I could wave a magic wand and have it up and running on my server 5 minutes from now, what would break or otherwise be worse than what I have right now? I can understand the idea that maybe clients won't get the full benefit until they're configured to check any DNS requests they make to me, but I'd be hard pressed to think of why that would actually be a problem.
Same here. I bought a six-pack of Sam Adams Octoberfest last month and I still have three left. Maybe we're not the best at predicting typical consumption patterns.
It is much easier to grow your own marijuana than it is to make your own alcohol.
I've never grown marijuana, but I've helped neighbors brew beer and it wasn't that hard. Both are crummy paths to instant gratification, though, and likely only going to be popular among strong enthusiasts. Put another way, you're not going to brew beer or grow pot because you're craving a high. If that's your goal, you'd drive to your local grocery store and pick up your party supplies.
Umm, that was pretty much exactly my point. I was replying to someone who said that pot would put brewers out of business, and I contend that those same brewers - who already specialize in elaborate, expansive distribution systems for recreational drugs - would be well-equipped to diversify into pot sales.
You're completely right about all companies being in business to make money. In this case, those companies are exceptionally good at convincing customers that their brand of alcohol is better than their nearly identical competitor's. I'd bet a lot of their marketing strategies would work nearly as well with a different product line.
I mean, why would you let someone take away your government monopoly on legal substance abuse?
You're making the same mistake as people who gripe about "Big Oil" instead of "Big Energy". Just as Exxon-Mobil will gladly sell you hydrogen or biodiesel or whatever else when we migrate off oil, plenty of companies in the recreational drug industry will cheerfully market pot if it became legal.
Anheuser-Busch isn't in the business of selling you alcohol. Ultimately, they're in the business of getting you high. While they're currently most efficient at doing that by distributing ethanol, you can bet they could sell other stuff, too.
And think of the Super Bowl ads. You think they're funny now?
It's time for LVRJ to get what they've asked for: to be left alone. Completely. Utterly. Don't mention them, don't link to them, don't discuss them, don't acknowledge that they exist. Let that be the last $150,000 of income they ever collect. If they don't want publicity, respect their wishes and let them die off in a corner by themselves.
Maybe the true lesson to learn is this: don't let former employees keep their access. Not even for a few days.
And the corollary: when leaving a job, for any reason, request in writing that your access privileges be revoked immediately. If you can't get in then you can't be blamed for random mishaps down the road. And while your request obviously doesn't accomplish the technical task of removing your access, it does help establish your good intent should anything suspicious ever happen.
I think the quality of the unicomp boards is closer to the lexmark made Model Ms than the IBM ones,
I haven't knowingly used a Lexmark, but I'd still say you're right. I was using a Model M (January 91) but got a Unicomp about a year ago because I was missing the extra keys that I could bind stuff to. It's a fine keyboard, but not as firm or clicky as the M, and significantly lighter and more flexible. I don't mean that as a complaint - just an observation.
I was never a refresh maniac, but I did like it in the 80-85Hz range. Anything much below that would start to give visible flicker that drove me batty. I never could understand people who were happy with 50Hz and didn't see the strobe light sitting on their desk. I sure liked my resolution, though. I had a 19" Samsung CRT that thrived at 1600x1200x80, but I tried a lot of cables before I found one that looked acceptably good at that level. I figured that if I'm going to stare at something for 8+ hours a day, I want it to look nice.
But I've never paid more than $10 for an HDMI cable, and that was only when I needed one now and that was the cheapest I could find at Target on a moment's notice.